Qualifying experience at third employer (university/medical center project)
AAO 为什么未被说服
The record contained numerous unexplained inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's actual employer and the full-time or part-time nature of the work from June 1, 2007 to August 10, 2008. Letters from the dean were internally inconsistent on the employment period, and other documents suggested a different employer than stated on the labor certification.…
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The record contained numerous unexplained inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's actual employer and the full-time or part-time nature of the work from June 1, 2007 to August 10, 2008. Letters from the dean were internally inconsistent on the employment period, and other documents suggested a different employer than stated on the labor certification. The Petitioner's own letter contradicted the labor certification by describing full-time rather than part-time employment. The record also did not explain how the Beneficiary could have worked full-time while simultaneously enrolled in graduate programs.
A second letter from a director at the health system confirmed the Beneficiary's full-time employment as a programmer-analyst 2, resolving the deficiency noted in the RFE regarding the first letter. The record established approximately 26 months of full-time qualifying experience at this employer.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
A second letter from a director at the health system confirmed the Beneficiary's full-time employment as a programmer-analyst 2, resolving the deficiency noted in the RFE regarding the first letter. The record established approximately 26 months of full-time qualifying experience at this employer.
USCIS must read the labor certification's plain language, which required a bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent and precluded alternate combinations of education and experience. The beneficiary's associate membership certificate is not a degree from a college or university and therefore does not meet the stated requirement.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
USCIS must read the labor certification's plain language, which required a bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent and precluded alternate combinations of education and experience. The beneficiary's associate membership certificate is not a degree from a college or university and therefore does not meet the stated requirement.
national interest substantially greater than U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that reference letters were conclusory or lacked specific examples of field-wide impact; published case reports lacked citation evidence showing influence; peer review participation and conference presentations were routine and insufficient to demonstrate national interest substantially greater than a U.S. worker; and clinical skills relate to the labor certification process rather than the NIW inquiry.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that reference letters were conclusory or lacked specific examples of field-wide impact; published case reports lacked citation evidence showing influence; peer review participation and conference presentations were routine and insufficient to demonstrate national interest substantially greater than a U.S. worker; and clinical skills relate to the labor certification process rather than the NIW inquiry.
serves national interest to a substantially greater degree than a U.S. worker with same minimum qualifications
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO rejected the petitioner's argument that the third prong does not apply to self-petitioners, citing NYSDOT footnote 5. AAO found the letters and evidence did not demonstrate how the petitioner's findings specifically impacted his field—letters noted his past studies but did not describe their subsequent impact, and praised innovative research without showing it widely influenced farming practices or other researchers.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO rejected the petitioner's argument that the third prong does not apply to self-petitioners, citing NYSDOT footnote 5. AAO found the letters and evidence did not demonstrate how the petitioner's findings specifically impacted his field—letters noted his past studies but did not describe their subsequent impact, and praised innovative research without showing it widely influenced farming practices or other researchers.